On Sun, 12 Mar 2006 04:57:59 +0100, Hisham Muhammad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On 3/11/06, Lucas Correia Villa Real <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 3/11/06, Jonas Karlsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> The executable for scons is 'scons', not 'scons.py' as given in
Compile at
> row ~969. I'm not sure that a patch wold help such small change, so
I've
> just typed a pseudo patch below the sig just to ease the location of
the
> error.
>
> --
> /Jonas
>
> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
>
> if [ "$is_scons" = "yes" ]
> then
> - [ "$scons" ] || scons="scons.py"
> + [ "$scons" ] || scons="scons"
> [ "$install_target" ] || install_target="install"
> if [ ! "$override_default_options" = "yes" ]
>
Commited, thanks.
Slow down, cowboy!
There's *something* broken in the scons world. The recipe for the
latest official release (0.96.1) contains a scons -> scons.py sed. The
installed script is called scons.py, and that's why I put scons.py in
Compile. Now here's the thing: if you simply remove the sed line from
the recipe, it fails to build. A proper fix to the recipe is
necessary, just changing one of the sides won't cut it (at least they
were consistent before).
SCons 0.96.1 and 0.96.91 differs. Where .1 have files with .py suffixes,
.91 does not. The sed part in the recipe is therefore not needed in .91.
However those versions of SCons are not compatible (in Compile terms). So
the question is, should the .91 recipe be modified to produce .py files or
should .91 be listed as a requirement to use scons target in Compile?
--
/Jonas
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
gobolinux-devel mailing list
gobolinux-devel@lists.gobolinux.org
http://lists.gobolinux.org/mailman/listinfo/gobolinux-devel
